IMPORTANT POINT
Expression “treating other party with cruelty” in Section 13(1)(ia) of Act 1955, wife enough to cover a cruel treatment even subsequent to filing of petition by making wild serious allegations in written statement.

D. B. Bhosale, J. —This Family Court Appeal under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, is directed against the Judgment and order dated 30.03.2005 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Mumbai. By this judgment, a petition, filed by the respondent-husband, being Petition No.A942 of 1997, has been allowed and the marriage of the appellant-wife and the respondent has been dissolved by a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short, “the Act”). While dissolving the marriage, the Family Court held that the appellant-wife is entitled to permanent custody of their son Aniket. The Family Court, however, has negatived the appellant’s claim of Stridhan and has directed the respondent to pay maintenance of Rs.2,500 per month each to the appellant and to their son Aniket.

2. The respondent has not challenged any part of the impugned judgment, and, therefore, learned counsel for the parties have not addressed the court on the question of custody of Aniket.

3. The brief facts, which are relevant to dispose of this appeal, are recapitulated as under: The parties were married on 20.5.1994 at Sumerpur, Rajasthan according to Hindu Vedic Rites and Customs of the community. After the marriage, the parties stayed at their native place for about a month and came to Mumbai and started residing in the joint family at Militia Apartment, Mazgaon, Mumbai. They cohabited for a period of about two years and on 29.6.1996 the appellant left the matrimonial home last and thereafter she did not return. During the period of two years, according to the respondent, there were several incidents causing cruelty to the respondent and making it impossible for him to live with the appellant. The respondent, therefore, filed petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty in May, 1997.

After the service of summons, the appellant filed a criminal case under Section 498A of IPC against the respondent and his family members some time in October, 1997 making very serious and wild allegations against the respondent and his family members. She alleged that there is a custom in the respondent’s family to share each others wives with other male members in the family and that she was consistently and persistently told by the respondent and the female members in the family to have illicit relations with the brother and the brother-in-law of the respondent. She also alleged that the brother of the respondent Puranmal also outraged her modesty. In this case, all the accused were convicted by the learned Magistrate vide his judgment and order dated 1.12.2004. Against the order of conviction, the respondent filed appeal and in the appeal the respondent and his family members were acquitted vide judgment and order dated 13.8.2008. A revision against the order of acquittal is pending. There is no dispute that in connection with this case the respondent and his family members were arrested and released on bail.

4. Before we proceeded to hear this appeal on merits, with a view to see if a settlement or reconciliation was possible, we interviewed the parties in chamber and found that reconciliation was not possible between them.

5. In order to examine and appreciate whether the behaviour of the appellant towards the respondent falls within the legal conception of cruelty, we refer to the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Suman Kaput v. Sudhit Kapur, 2009(1) SCC 422. In this case, the Supreme Court has observed that if it is mental cruelty, the enquiry must begin as to the nature of the cruel treatment and then as to the impact of such treatment on the mind of the other spouse. Whether it caused reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for him to live with the respondent ultimately is a matter of inference to be drawn by taking into account the nature of conduct and its effect on the complaining spouse. (Also see Shobha Rani v. Madhukat Reddi, 1998 SCC 105. In Dastane v.